Should taxing the rich be part of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling?

Should taxing the rich be part of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling?

Your Vote

Yes

No

Explain your vote (optional)

Name

Enter the numbers shown below

Only your first vote will be counted in the city and national vote tallies, but your vote here will still be associated with any comment that you make.
It may take up to 5 minutes before your vote becomes visible on the map.

1.Start by ending the notion that "the rich" are the ones getting the tax cuts.Sure, the rich athletes and parris hilton types will be numbered among those who will benefit but that's not who they are talking about.

The group the politicians are talking about are PRODUCERS and MANUFACTURERS.The job creators.

They are the ones who supply the jobs in this country not the millionaire socialite or the rich athlete.

The term used from now on, instead of "the rich", should be PRODUCERS AND MANUFACTURERS.

2.The tax cut supporting politicians should put the companies that would benefit from a tax cut ON THE SPOT.

Force them to tell the american public what they would do with the tax cut.

Will they hire more employees,expand the company????

The companies that will benefit from these cuts should address the ones who are paying for it by reassuring them that they will do the right thing and REINVEST back into the economic system.

The speculation is that companies are supposedly afraid of the economic uncertainty.

Those opposed to tax cuts are afraid of the UNCERTAINTY of what will become of the extra income these companies will have as a result of a tax cut.

Those companies need to reassure us that they will do the right thing if granted a tax cut.

3.It should be mentioned that taxing the producers and manufactures to death will only yield so much money.

There are almost 14 MILLION unemployed right now.

That's a lot of POTENTIAL tax revenue NOT being collected.

We have to ask one important question.......Which would generate more revenue, taxing the companies profits or putting ALL of the 14 MILLION unemployed folks back to work and taxing their pay role checks??????

dear chicago & northwestern,most of what you typed is truth.many want to know what has happened to the cash the tax cuts were used for in the past 9 1/2 years, my answer would be: corporate greed and wealth.The tax cuts of the past 9 1/2 years have created minuscule jobs. Just a fact.

I fail to understand why everyone (democrats) think it is OK to just "Tax" (TAKE) the rich! Why do they think just because someone has more than they do it is OK for the government to "Tax" (TAKE) it from them and give it to others? Isn't that socialism...you know like communism but a nicer word!

I think that everyone one should be taxed the same. Wouldn't that be fair? How about a flat tax, say 18% of all you make. Everyone who earms an income, be it from working, social security, any income. Any entitlement would be taxed at the same rate as income.(if you didn't earn it at least pay taxes on it!!) Right now over 45% of the people in the US pay NO taxes, yet they collect refunds? How can you justify taxing those who have and give it to the have nots?

I fail to understand why everyone (democrats) think it is OK to just "Tax" (TAKE) the rich! Why do they think just because someone has more than they do it is OK for the government to "Tax" (TAKE) it from them and give it to others?Isn't that socialism...you know like communism but a nicer word!I think that everyone one should be taxed the same. Wouldn't that be fair?How about a flat tax, say 18% of all you make. Everyone who earms an income, be it from working, social security, any income. Any entitlement would be taxed at the same rate as income.(if you didn't earn it at least pay taxes on it!!) Right now over 45% of the people in the US pay NO taxes, yet they collect refunds? How can you justify taxing those who have and give it to the have nots?

A valid argument but you are falling into the trap of saying "the rich".

When they say the rich,i think of the monopoly guy sitting in his mansion in front of a roaring fireplace burning bundles of $100's to keep warm.

If we were to say producers and manufacturers instead of "the rich'",this would go a long way in promoting the idea that the folks we are talking about are those who CREATE jobs and NOT the LEONA HELMSLEY types.

Although, i must admit, it would take more than a name change to convince the doubting populace that a guy like Lloyd blankfein (who made $74MILLION as CEO of goldman sachs)is on their side.

dear chicago & northwestern,most of what you typed is truth.many want to know what has happened to the cash the tax cuts were used for in the past 9 1/2 years, my answer would be: corporate greed and wealth.The tax cuts of the past 9 1/2 years have created minuscule jobs. Just a fact.

First,you must be an ex-CNW employee as you are the first person to correctly deduce that CNW stands for Chicago & Northwestern.

Second, your wanting to know what happened to the tax cut money of the "W" era speaks to my second point in my first posting.

If the claim is that tax cuts will benefit ALL then the ones who are receiving the tax cuts should be explain how they will use the money to benefit ALL.

But they DON'T.

Some lawmakers push the belief that tax cuts create jobs.

This is FALSE.

In the context of our discussion,REINVESTING creates jobs.

Tax cuts ONLY create an environment that is conducive to job creation but does not actually create jobs.

Companies must reinvest in order for job growth to take place.

If they receive tax cuts,they MUST reinvest in order for job growth to take place.

Folks, once agin the republicans talk about tax reform in our countries budget. The republicans talk agin of reducing our debt. but to reduce the debt the REPUBLICANS once agin want to cut Medicare and Social Security. Yey agin the Republicans say reduce debt wth out tax cuts, but how can a deficit nbe paid off by just reducing deficits without funding? the REepublican plan of CUT, CAP and spend for the wealthy. the cuts come from the Social Security and Medicare, and medicaid. Now in the Bush 2 presidency the republicans never met a spending bill they did not love. Now they held power for 6 years during the Bush years and during that period of time the REPUBLICANS not once spoke of cutting the deficit spending--not once. But the Republicans did pass a tax cut, not 1 but 2 tax cuts. From 1980 to 2005 the rich wealthy person in the top 1 percent,the richest of the rich--got 80 percent of the gains of the income gains in our country. That left a measely 20 percent to the rest of the 99 percent of the people most having made no gains in that period of time. in 2010 the wealthy made a 22 percent gain in their wealth, mean while the working class made 1 percent raise in their earnings that is if they were not the one who had a lost in their median earnings which came to a $2,500 loss. that loss came about in the bush presidency.

95, all of the investment money you speak of is being invested in offshore corporations and the moving their corporations to that country where they fimd no enviormental laws, no laws protective of their workers, and the low wages paid. Some as low as pennies per hour. Mexico is now seeing their growth grow and is is now growing at 5.2 percent. The reason is soimple the corporations in our country are moving there or enlarging their plants. The wealthy are soing no investments in our country but off shoring their invstments and our nations indurtrial base is also moving offshore. And some of the corporations holding onto weveral trillion dollars instead of invsting in our nation.

Folks, once agin the republicans talk about tax reform in our countries budget. The republicans talk agin of reducing our debt. but to reduce the debt the REPUBLICANS once agin want to cut Medicare and Social Security. Yey agin the Republicans say reduce debt wth out tax cuts, but how can a deficit nbe paid off by just reducing deficits without funding? the REepublican plan of CUT, CAP and spend for the wealthy. the cuts come from the Social Security and Medicare, and medicaid. Now in the Bush 2 presidency the republicans never met a spending bill they did not love. Now they held power for 6 years during the Bush years and during that period of time the REPUBLICANS not once spoke of cutting the deficit spending--not once. But the Republicans did pass a tax cut, not 1 but 2 tax cuts. From 1980 to 2005 the rich wealthy person in the top 1 percent,the richest of the rich--got 80 percent of the gains of the income gains in our country. That left a measely 20 percent to the rest of the 99 percent of the people most having made no gains in that period of time. in 2010 the wealthy made a 22 percent gain in their wealth, mean while the working class made 1 percent raise in their earnings that is if they were not the one who had a lost in their median earnings which came to a $2,500 loss. that loss came about in the bush presidency.

Your comments speak truth.

The general populace who agrees with the notion of tax cuts forget that if you cut taxes over HERE,SOMETHING goes UNFUNDED over THERE.

It's CAUSE and EFFECT.

But which program/s get cut??????

SS,medicare,medicaid???????

We have already seen the uproar that (paul)ryans plan has caused.

And alot of the opposition is coming from HIS SIDE!!!!!

A large number of the republican/conservative voting populace DISAGREE with ryans reforms of SS because they are recipients of SS.

And yet aren't they the ones who are calling for government to reign in spending?????? To TIGHTEN the belt?????

The same ones who call obama a socialist but when one of their own attempts to do the masses bidding by batting down SOCIALISM they go out and VIGOROUSLY defend the same SOCIALIST program from which they receive funds?????

How can a person complain about socialism while at the same time fight to keep receiving money from a socialist program???????

Why not? If the poor and middle cass pays then why not the rich. Don't you know how they've gotten rich. They've done so on our backs. Most of the politicians have government money pouring into their bank accounts and they complain that it's the poor who are weighing down the system. Wake up Milwaukee. One of these ole days they've going to take back everything--even the street lights. They want it all.

Middle Class supports the " Rich and Famous " I just won't support their product in the future....It feels so fine !

My contention is there MUST be a distinction between a famous,rich celeb/athlete/parris hilton type and a giant conglomerate that provides jobs.

Yes, both are rich but one is an INDIVIDUAL while the other is a GROUP

Both are rich but the lone, rich celeb/athlete/socialite does NOT contribute to the overall economic status of the country while the companies,producers and manufacturers provide jobs to literally THOUSANDS of people.

Some companies even have an effect on our GDP. We can't say that about the INDIVIDUAL, rich celeb/athlete/reality tv star.

As a matter of fact,lawmakers who support tax cuts should exclude those who aren't a producer or manufacturer or business owner.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.